Several news items this morning got me thinking. First, I heard on NPR on the way in to work that the US has given, or is in the process of giving to Israel our latest technology, several "bunker busting" bombs. The announcement presumed they could be used on "secret" nuclear sites in Iran. WTC?!? I find it outrageous that they should be "giving" Israel and such kind of weaponry, or even "letting" them spy out the specs for such a device.
The next news item was a report that Iran refused to give up its plan to enrich uranium, despite international pressure from the IAEA.
While pondering the relationship between the Likud, Sharon government and the Likud cabal in the administration, I began to see what may be the much anticipated October surprise.
Once you stop thinking about the Butch administration alone, but include its sister government in Israel, joined at the scrotum as they are, the idea of Israeli cooperation in the "surprise" opens some ugly doors.
My scenario: After some weeks of nucular fear mongering by the shouting windbags and their trusty sidekicks, making sure the American public understands the "imminent danger" of Iran with nukes and not allowing the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv and/or New York, made possible by the "terror lovin'" Eyerainiuns, Israel launches a "preemptive" airstrike against Iranian nuclear facilities. It wouldn't be hard for Israel to fly over US airspace (Iraq) and attempt a surprise attack with the bunker busters so fortuitously provided by us. Naturally, Iran would try to defend itself. In this scenario, losing a couple of aircraft in the raid would be a bonus.
The SCLM would be outraged that Iran dared to shoot down ISRAELI aircraft that were just protecting themselves against terror. The same justification of preemption given for our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq would be hard to counter without honest media asking hard questions and GASP, providing context for once.
Kerry would be between Iraq and a hard place. If he denounces Israel for obvious violations of international law, he loses votes. If he agrees with the action, he's me tooing again and loses votes. If he's silent, he's weak on terrorism and, you guessed it, he loses votes.
For Sharon, it's a slam dunk. He gets to beat the war drums and silence political opposition. He can wrap up the Palestinians and damn way he pleases and he's fighting terror. Any Palestinian retaliations would be warmly welcomed. Assuming Iran would try to retaliate, he gets to use the most modern and well trained war machine in the region, backed by the full force of his eternal ally, the US. I wouldn't be surprised if Syria somehow gets dragged in as well.
For both "leaders" they get to first, castigate the UN (assuming they would naturally object to grotesque violations of treaty and international law) and then completely sideline international objections. If "French speaking" Kerry spoke in the UN's defense, he would take a huge hit and would obviously "hate America".
Bottom line: the "wartime President" is the only hope we have and the war on Islam becomes hot and perennial. Our little experiment of representative democracy will take a generational hit from which it may never recover.
Since I think it would take 2-3 weeks to whip up the right frenzy, I will fearlessly predict an Israeli attack on October 15, give or take 5 days. Have a nice day ; )